From the email bag...
_________________________________________________________________________
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal ran a very disturbing article on the front page of its "Marketplace" section about cities using eminent domain to take private property so that big-box stores can be built, as a way for cities to increase their tax revenue.
What kind of person would try to rationalize that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment intended "public use" to be defined as a big-box store? Gideon Kanner, professor emeritus at Loyola University Law School in Los Angeles, was quoted in the Journal article as saying, "They're the new generation of robber barons, like the railroads of the 19th century."
According to the Journal, one of the biggest proponents of such takings is Costco, which is based in the blue state of Washington. To quote:
"In a candid letter to concerned shareholders two years ago, the company's senior vice president for legal and administrative affairs, Joel Benoliel, acknowledged that 'probably dozens' of its projects involved eminent domain 'or the threat of it' .... Mr. Benoliel says the practice doesn't violate laws or rules of the free-market economy and rejects as 'simplistic' libertarian arguments that condemnation should be confined, as some property-rights advocates argue, to roads, bridges and purely public uses. He says communities balancing their fiscal needs against the rights of a few, often clamor for a Costco store. 'We are viewed as a solution to a problem,' he says."
Yikes! Those pesky, simplistic libertarians shouldn't be sticking up for the rights of the few and getting in the way of consumers buying a four-foot by four-foot package of toilet paper at Costco. Speaking of which, maybe Costco should consider selling toilet paper that is imprinted with the Bill of Rights.
Using what I'm guessing is his e-mail address, I'm blind-copying Mr. Benoliel, Esquire on this, in the event that the Wall Street Journal misquoted him or misrepresented his views, and he wants to set the record straight.
Regards,
Craig J. Cantoni
Honest Americans Against Legal Theft (HAALT)
www.haalt.org
Because stealing is wrong, especially by the government
_________________________________________________________________________
Costco's senior vice president for legal and administrative affairs, Joel Benoliel, has responded to my e-mail about Costco and the Bill of Rights, and has accepted my offer to clarify his position on Costco pressuring municipalities to use their power of eminent domain to take property from private owners for the building of Costco big-box stores. His thoughts are printed below my signature block in blue (assuming the color appears on your screen) and marked with a vertical line in the left margin. My responses are printed in black immediately following each of his thoughts.
A prefatory remark: As readers of my Arizona Republic column and other writings know, I am an equal opportunity basher of both political parties when they violate the Constitution and undermine liberty. To put Costco in political perspective, its CEO, Jim Sinegal, was a major contributor to Senator John Kerry's campaign. Sinegal exercised his right of free speech and gave $95,000 to two anti-Bush "527" organizations, America Coming Together and the Media Fund. And as readers also know, I've gone against public opinion and defended the right of big-box chains to build their stores where they are not welcomed by local communities but meet local zoning requirements.
Regards,
Craig J. Cantoni
Honest Americans Against Legal Theft (HAALT)
www.haalt.org
Because stealing is wrong, especially by the government
In a message dated 12/9/2004 9:30:45 AM US Mountain Standard Time, jbenoliel@costco.com writes:
Thanks for your message. I spent several hours in person and on the telephone with the reporter who wrote the story. Most of what I said was either edited out or was included without the full context. He did get it right however, that I don't believe Costco has done anything wrong, and that I believe most people who complain about us have over-simplified a complex issue. I did not call anyone simplistic.
Sorry, Joel, but the following is not complex: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." None of my dictionaries, economics books, political science books, history books or writings of the Founders says that the word "public" is synonymous with "private industry" or "Costco." There may be other parts of the Constitution that are ambiguous, but not this one. Any complexifying of the Takings Clause is the result of municipalities and corporations engaging in legal contortions to redefine the Supreme Law of the Land. As an officer of the court, aren't you supposed to uphold that law and put the Constitution before the pecuniary interests of your employer?
What I believe is this: municipal governments have been making use of their eminent domain powers in this country for many decades, for purposes other than roads, bridges, and parks. How do you think dozens of major league baseball parks and football stadiums have been built in city centers all over the country? Is a playground to showcase multi-millionaire athletes and their television sponsors a public use? Of course not, but they are popular, and a less obvious target than Costco which sells bulk toilet paper. The fact remains that without the power of eminent domain, there would be little urban renewal in our cities, and many projects that make citizens most proud of their communities would never have been built.
Yes, municipalities have been violating the Constitution for many decades. No, stadiums for private sports teams are not a public use. So is your argument that Costco should do it because everybody else is doing it?
For some strange reason, the Nuremberg defense comes to mind. Das Vaterland vor der Einzelperson.
And are you saying that a Costco big-box store is an example of an urban renewal project that makes "citizens most proud of their communities"?
You claim that it is a fact that there would be "little" urban renewal without the right of eminent domain. Oh, really? There are scores of examples across the country of private industry redeveloping property without the use of eminent domain. And there are scores of examples of urban renewal projects that didn't renew anything for the poor or middle class. In my hometown of St. Louis, urban renewal was called "Negro renewal" in the 1960s. Just as my black coworkers on a janitorial crew were beginning to climb the socioeconomic ladder, they were forced out of their homes and into high-rise housing projects. Blacks are still suffering from the social pathologies caused by such urban renewal. Much "urban renewal" of today is done on behalf of loft-dwelling, Volvo-driving, chardonnay-sipping, arugula-eating Yuppies.
In those states where the practice is common and legal, we have been invited to participate rather than having sought out the deals as a way of reducing our cost. In fact, these deals do not reduce our acquisition costs. If citizens like you do not want eminent domain used in urban renewal projects, you should pursue a legislative solution. When laws are passed that prohibit the practice, it will stop. Otherwise, it is legal in many jurisdictions. So long as it is, I believe it is folly for one company to sit on the sidelines while all of its competitors participate in re-development deals.
Local "laws" do not supersede the Bill of Rights. Calling something "legal" that is illegal does not make it legal.
I particularly like the way that you put your situational ethics in my court. If I'm opposed to Costco violating the existing law, the Constitution, I should have new laws passed instead of Costco simply obeying the existing law. It's my responsibility to stop your employer from doing something wrong, not yours.
Another point that I made in my interviews that was omitted is this: all of the deals that are complained about involve a legal taking under constitutional protections to provide adequate compensation. Otherwise, the taking does not occur. And lots of smart lawyers like Mr.. Kanner are seeing to it that the compensation is at least adequate. In fact, the big untold part of this story is that frequently, the price paid to landowners turns out to be way above market in re-development deals because they have a collective bargaining power when they join with their neighbors, and the vast majority of the deals are settled without condemnation.
What is "adequate compensation" when someone refuses to sell and has his rights violated? Does this mean that it would be okay to throw all Joels in jail as long as they received adequate compensation? I bet if I worked at it long enough, I could come up with a rationalization for throwing all Joels in jail, something about the good of society and popular opinion.
You scare me.
|